I have another one of those "hypocritical" articles to show you.

With the advent of the internet, and the fact that information "wants to be free", there have been a multitude of sites that have appeared over the years that have been especially useful! I think one of the more important benefits to the internet is the fact that we don't have to rely on the liberal news corporations to hear what's going on anymore, which is especially good when it comes to politics and the media throwing themselves behind one candidate without portraying the others in a fair light. Even Digg understand this, with their outcry against CNN for clearly staging debates and asking only questions that advance certain political views that they want asked. When Digg defends the Republican candidates from CNN, you know something's very, very wrong with CNN.

Anyway, people love the internet. They can say what they want and read what they want. At least... That's the plan, and people enjoy it when their own views get publicized and tell the world that they can stop up their ears and hum loudly if they don't want to hear it. However... This doesn't always seem to be the case.

The University of Toronto has declared that YouTube is a "breeding ground" for anti-vaccination propaganda, and that these clearly insane publications are getting better ratings than the pro-vaccination propaganda videos. They go on about how people are being misinformed and how more people seem to think that the anti-vaccination videos are more informative than the ones for vaccinations, and that doctors and "health care professionals" need to be aware of this "concerning" trend and that something needs to be done.

Hmm, so it's alright for you to post videos telling us how great vaccinations are, yet it's not okay for other people to post videos telling us how not so great those vaccinations are. Isn't that the very definition of indoctrination? Isn't that against the very idea of sharing information? Like abortion and evolution, they only want to present one side of the matter and if someone else dares come along to say otherwise, they get called out for shoving their false, unscientific propaganda on everyone. Hmm...

Do you want to know my personal stance on vaccinations? They're extremely dangerous. I can personally attest to this. I've had, maybe... three vaccinations in my life, before my parents realized how dangerous they were. Mumps, measles and something else. I don't remember, and, frankly, I don't want to know. I actually experienced chicken pox, so that wasn't the other one. But when I was around... oh. 8 to 10 years old, I got something called HSP. It's got a big ol' long name, and I'm not going to bother trying to type it, but I had it, that's for sure. Strangely enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover how you contract this thing... It comes from a vaccination. I don't remember which one, exactly, but my parents read about it extensively, so I could ask them again. I believe it was measles. Anyway, I got this as a direct result from a vaccination I received.

Actually, as a matter of fact, Wikipedia does mention very slightly at the very bottom of the article that it's considered an "allergy". So, yes, I got it as an allergic reaction to one of the vaccinations I got. My brother also reacted poorly to vaccinations with incredibly high blood pressure. Needless to say, with personal experience, vaccinations are not all they're cracked up to be. Some company invented this crap and decided it was worth fighting to make them required by law, and now we have to take some to do certain things. Isn't that lovely? Can't make our own choices? (Hmm, who else is fighting for making choices... Oh! Abortionists and homosexuals. People listen to them, though. When we talk about vaccinations, we get labeled as inferior morons who clearly don't understand how medicine works and we should shut up and deal with it.) Anyway, I'm getting off track...

It's just... amusing, shall we say... That it's okay for people to do whatever they want on the internet! That is, it's okay for people to do whatever they want, as long as it conforms to what's considered "scientifically accurate". I don't hold much for scientific accuracy these days. It's scientifically accurate to assume that the universe is 80 gazillion years old? It's scientifically accurate that the planet is going to fry itself thanks to the parasite called "human" pumping gases into the atmosphere? It's scientifically accurate to declare that drugs are good for you and you should take them because your doctor tells you to, even when the side effects could be worse than what the pills are supposed to be temporarily covering up?

A little word to you folks who don't like what you see on the internet? Guess what? You don't have to look! Haha! And if someone does want to look, then they should be allowed to. If they think vaccinations aren't all they're made to be, then they should be allowed to research wherever they want.

And before someone brings up the idea that YouTube shouldn't be some place where you go to look for this sort of information, I have to ask this: Just because it's on YouTube? That makes it inaccurate? Does it really? Hmm, what about all those clips of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series on YouTube? I'll bet you think those are accurate, huh? Hey! Political debates and interviews are posted on YouTube all the time now, too. Does it make those inaccurate? Just because it's YouTube, it doesn't make it inaccurate. It's what's presented in the video that makes it inaccurate, and if you think something's inaccurate, fine. Don't watch it, and tell people that you think it's inaccurate and why.

Healthy debate is good. One-sided indoctrination is not.

There's a game out there called EVE Online. Basically a true virtual world with a massive ever-shifting economy, controlled by giant corporations who are in turn preyed upon by pirates. Really interesting place. Too bad it can quickly take weeks to train a new skill, and that was enough to kill the atmosphere. I'm not going to pay a monthly fee when all I can do during that month is learn Freighter Control Level 4 or whatever it was that was going to take 25 days.

Anyway, there's been a problem with the latest patch. It seems that the patcher program has been ordered to update a file called "Program Files\CCP\Eve\boot.ini". (And with that, any sane computer user would know what the problem is.) But that's right. An error in the patch script ordered the program to erase not \Eve\boot.ini... but C:\boot.ini. The file in Windows versions before Vista that allows them to actually start up? Yeah, that file. After using the patcher, poof! The file's gone. The system continues to run normally... Up until you decide to restart.

This is where things get messy, because, face it, not many people know how to fix the boot.ini file. For anyone having trouble, you need to put in your Windows XP disc and start setup. (Don't worry, you don't have to reinstall XP.) When the time comes, pick the option for "Recovery Console" and start that. It'll drop you at a prompt where you'll more than likely have to sign in as Administrator. This is usually an account made during installation, and if you didn't install XP, it probably has no password. Once you've signed in, run the command bootcfg /rebuild and then restart the system. That will replace the boot.ini file with what's supposed to be there. However, only do this if XP really doesn't start. It's probably not a wise idea to rebuild boot.ini unless it's actually missing.

But with all this, people are actually blaming Microsoft for, of course, allowing such a thing to "ever happen", because, clearly, this would never happen on Linux or OS X and is strictly a Microsoft problem. Uhm. No. No, it's not. I'll tell you why. Windows requires you to install applications as an Administrator, and things with Administrator access can do anything, on purpose or by mistake. A flaw, you say? Any smart person, at this point, would agree with me that it's CCP's fault, not Microsoft's. Not in the least bit. Because, hey! Guess what? On Linux, at least, since I've never installed an application on OS X, you have to install programs being... What? Root. Using Aptitude or Apt-Get asks for what? Root. Who do you have to be, more often than not, to run make install properly? Root. Root is required to install applications on more than just Windows.

What do you want? Do you want Microsoft to further seal up the workings of their OS and allow it to only be touchable by the most proprietary and closed source? Wait, no, that won't work. Nobody wants that. They scream "Doomsday!" whenever something like that is even suggested, let alone proven. You want Windows to pop up a window and say "Hey, what you're about to do might not be very wise"? Hey, WAIT A MINUTE! Vista has User Access Control! That thing everyone makes fun of because it constantly asks if you actually want to let a program operate as Administrator! That thing everyone shuts off!

Microsoft can't win. They're blamed for the problems caused by developers of poorly written games and bad drivers and when they try to fix these stupid flaws with things like UAC and signed drivers? Everyone acts like it's the end of the world, and they demand that Microsoft remove those features because they're going to "interfere" with people who want to "distribute their own drivers". Remember that? Also, let's not forget that Vista isn't even affected by this bug, because Vista doesn't use a boot loader in the same way anymore. But let's sweep that under the rug because we all know that Vista is little more than XP with a pretty Aero interface, right?

Ah, people, people, people... Cursing Microsoft for the fact that an installer application by a third-party can tamper with the boot loader of Windows, when Linux functions the very same way. Clearly, there is no better way of installing an application if Linux of all OSes uses the same method! We all know that Linux is the second coming in regards to operating systems and anything it does is monumentally immaculate, and even if other OSes operate the very same way on some levels? They're clearly inferior when a project beyond OS developer's control takes advantage of the feature to do something wrong, on purpose or by accident.

This is why I will never officially support Linux. The community rallying behind it are all hypocrites and see themselves as without failure. (I've been using that word a lot, haven't I? Been finding lots of two-facedness lately, heheh.) Tell me when you guys come around with truly open eyes and I might reconsider my stance on Linux and open source software in general.

I love conspiracy theories. More to the point, I love laughing at them... Except in the case of all these terrible September 11th theories that just make me sick. If you honestly think that our own government crashed planes into the towers or brought the things down themselves, you're just insane, and I mean that in all seriousness. You are insane and don't deserve to share your ideas with anyone. If it's bothering you that much, why not just leave the country and spare us your diatribe in the process? Oh... You like the freedoms here. Okay.

Anyway, I saw this on Digg (oh boy!) today. The premise of the story all boils down to the fact that someone, somewhere, is trying to (poorly) point out that the reason LSD is illegal is because the CIA discovered it is the anti-mind controlling substance, so to speak, and they couldn't allow it to interfere with their plans. Haha, right. You have a tiny paragraph at the bottom of your post and we should take your complete and total word for it. Yes, this is how conspiracy theories work. They're just that! Theories. No proof at all, and what little proof there might be is so subjective anyway, that it might as well not be proof.

Now, the rest of the post seems pretty spot on common sense. Whoever it is talks about drugs, their side effects and what they do, and then talks about how some addictive drugs (sugar, caffeine) are legal and some (cocaine, heroin) aren't. How some are sponsored and taxed by the government and how some are just flat out illegal. Personally, I don't think any drug is worth the time it takes to pop one in your mouth. There's always a side effect to using a chemical drug, and there are almost always natural preventatives to the things you buy pills for. Except maybe a headache, but that's usually caused by stress or something and is a warning to slow down and rest. If you're not going to rest, then your brain is going to make you! But now people just pop a pill and keep going and get strokes and heart attacks and other more severe problems. Anyway...

He completely ruins it by saying that the CIA is behind it all as a front for mind control drugs that they're testing on their own people, and that they banned LSD because it'll break the affects they're trying to get. To quote:

LSD is the antithesis of mind control; the CIA discovered this fact and has done everything to keep it top-secret. The government is terrified of LSD becoming available to the masses. People just might think independently, and ignore the government’s propaganda. The last thing the government wants is the people unbinding themselves from their shackles and taking control of their own lives.

The government relies on your perceived dependency to stay in business and stay in control. Therefore as an American you MUST support the War on Drugs or else you are a terrorist. That means keeping drugs illegal, and forcing addicts to pay criminals and terrorists for drugs… how else are we going to fund both sides of the War or Terror?

Way to blow any credibility. Let me get this straight. You're trying to promote the legal use of drugs such as LSD? What others are you wanting to make legal? It almost sounds like you're wanting all of them to be legal. Why? Do you have any good reason besides "the government is controlling our brains"? I don't know about you, but I feel a bit safer knowing that LSD and the like is illegal to obtain. I would prefer not to have to worry about doped up loonies driving on highways when I go to college.

"Well, what about alcohol, GS? That's as mind-impairing as any of those drugs and it's legal!" Yes, but, hey, guess what? It didn't use to be. It is now, though, and I think it's the most damaging of all mind-impairing drugs because it is legal. By allowing alcohol, true, there is no basis for not allowing these other drugs. But, you know what? I don't agree with allowing alcohol. If asked, point blank, "GS, do you think alcohol should be illegal?" I will respond, point blank, "You better believe it."

But there you have it, folks. The CIA banned LSD because it interferes with their mind control plans and propaganda machines designed to force you to do what they want you to do! You heard it here, first! Right on the internet! The source for everything truth! And it has 512 votes on Digg! So it has to be true! More like... 512 people so completely out of touch with reality agree with what the article says, and they want it to become big news. Yeah, well... This isn't news any more than my site is endorsed by CNN. It's one of many conspiracy theories, and it's just as ludicrous as all the others. Only this time, the guy didn't even bother to show any proof. Way to watch too much X Files.

Here's a mirror of that website, if you want it and the original link is still down.

Behold, the beginning effects of global warming.

I've got some interesting radio news clips to post again. I love Tuesday. Got math and I get to hear all the latest crap pouring out of the world for that week. I've been busy, so I haven't listened to the radio as much as I usually do, but this is good enough for now.

First on the list, a commercial. I'm surprised I remembered the acronym they were touting, but I did, and now I can tell you. Pretty much, it starts off with someone listing all the latest technological breakthroughs. I don't remember them all, but they were pretty common things we all take for granted. I thought maybe it was going to be a commercial for inventors or something. We get those kind of commercials from time to time, but no. That wasn't it. The narrator finished it all up by asking, "What do all these things have in common? They were invented by African Americans." And that, my friends, was "oh boy" moment number one. Turns out that it was an advertisement campaign for something called the United Negro College Fund. One of many "for us only" things still in this world.

You know what? I get it. Really, I do. You were treated so inhumanely for so long and you're trying to get to where things should be. But you know how you can do that? By just being like the rest of us. We honestly don't care anymore if you're white or black or whatever you want to politically correctly call yourself. You're all people and you're all humans. But you've tipped the scales farther than they should be in an attempt to... Do what, exactly? You call everyone out on being racist for negative comments, and yet you continue to promote racism for positive comments. There is no difference! It's still racism! I'm not being racist in pointing this out, so don't try to. I'm about as anti-racist as you can be. That's why I'm pointing this out. If you want to be treated equally, it's about time you started acting like it and end this trend of setting yourselves apart. We're ready, but you're not.

Second on the list, a news clip presented by good ol' Peter Heck. Basically, there's been an interesting development in Wisconsin. Apparently, a couple (whether they're married or not wasn't mentioned that I know of) has tried to have a baby a few times, but each time, they had a miscarriage. Nasty thing to have happen. Well, the mother-to-be got suspicious when she noticed her boyfriend-of-the-time (whether or not he's the father, I also don't know, but it's not important either) was mixing something into a milkshake of hers. She took it to a laboratory for testing and, hey! Hello. It was laced with a substance called RU-486. Basically, it's an abortion drug. You can't get it here without a prescription, but the guy was importing it from his home country, India, and sticking it his girlfriend's drink and killing her baby.

Very, very disturbing and sad, to say the least. But it gets even better! The man is being charged with, get this. First-degree homicide. Do you know what "homicide" means, exactly? It means "the killing of a human". Look it up! Dictionary.com, Wikipedia! They both say the same thing. Do you know what "first-degree" means? It means the homicide was planned and intentional. By all definitions, he's being charged with the premeditated murder of a "fetus". You know, the early stages of a baby's development that everyone wants you to think it's a blob of random tissue that's perfectly fine to kill in all these abortion clinics around the country. All those "growths" they purge because the mother doesn't want it anymore. Yeah, that.

By what this man is being charged of, someone has acknowledged that what he did was kill a HUMAN. If he's found guilty, do you know what that means? It means the courts have determined that this man, who aborted a "fetus" like so many people do, just committed premeditated homicide. That means what he aborted was a human. That thing that people fight SO HARD to make legal to do.

Am I the only one who sees the disgusting hypocrisy here? It's okay for the mothers to walk into a building and have their baby sucked out and all sorts of evil, evil things done to it to kill it, but it's NOT okay for a boyfriend to slip in the SAME DRUG THEY USE FOR ABORTIONS into his girlfriend's drink? It's called "the right to choice" when a woman has her baby killed, but it's called "premeditated homicide" when her boyfriend does it? How is there a difference? Homicide means killing a person, right? So which is it? Is the wad of growing fleshy tissue a person or a wad of growing fleshy tissue? Can a baby be murdered in a womb and the person who did it be charged for homicide? Or can they abort the fetus on a whim and have everyone encourage it to be done if it's inconvenient for those involved?

You can NOT have it both ways. It's bad enough that abortions are legal, but it's outright insane and stupid and I can't even come up with enough heavier synonyms for "moronic" to describe this! It's illegal for a man to have a baby aborted, but it's not illegal to have the mother do it? "Oh, but it's the mother's body" everyone likes to point out. Is it, really? How does that explain the homicide charges against this man? He clearly didn't kill the mother. She's not the victim here, it's the BABY. The baby is being legally implicated as being a human, otherwise it can't be homicide.

As Peter said, let's leave the whole sexist implications completely out of this. Let's just focus on the fact that a mother can kill a baby without being held responsible for anything. It's called "abortion" and it's perfectly legal and everyone gets incredibly upset when you even mention that such a thing is wrong, but in the same breath, it's called "premeditated homicide" when someone besides the mother aborts a baby. No, then it's called killing.

It's no wonder this planet is so screwed up.

So by now, most of you know that there's a "mortgage crisis" in this country. Pretty much all it boils down to is this:

1. Companies give ridiculously low rates on loans, saying they may change in the future.
2. People who can't afford what they want see the ridiculously low rates and go "hey! I can buy whatever I want now and not have to pay back for a million years!"
3. People gets the loans.
4. Companies, completely within their loan contracts, decide to raise the rates.
5. People who can't afford to pay off their loans in full are hit with major monthly dues.
6. People who are now broke cry to the government for help.

Am I the only one who has absolutely no sympathy for these people? If you have to take out a loan to buy something, has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're not supposed to buy that thing yet? Need a new car? Do you really? Define new, here. Do you need a brand new car, or do you need a car? Nobody needs a brand new car. Get a used one, do some shopping. You don't have to take out a loan.

Some thing I can understand the need for a loan, like, for, say, a house. They're kind of expensive to pay for all at once. Solution? Just be smart. Don't be extravagant. Take out a loan you know you can handle. Plan ahead, don't spend money on things you don't need. It all boils down to this: Don't be careless with your money, or things like this happen.

But what really bugs me? They want the federal government and tax payers to fix it for them. Make everyone else make their own problems go away! I'm sorry, but you got yourself into this mess, and it's up to you to get yourself out of it. People whine all the time about how large our government has become, and how meddlesome it has become. But you know what? YOU PEOPLE WANT IT THAT WAY.

So even with a half-season, thanks to the evil publishers, Heroes still turned out rather well. I think it still carries the title of Best Primetime TV Show at the moment. Nothing else comes close. Like I said in my last post about it, LOST just lost most of its mystery and turned more into an action flick. We'll see if they ever decide to air this next season...

As much as I can't find fault with the Writers' Guild Strike, it's still very much of a pain. I can't help but think that maybe they could have at least finished the works in progress, but I guess this way, the impact is that much more... impactful. However, I don't blame them. I have a sneaking suspicion that the publishing companies are trying to hoard all the money for themselves, like every other publishing company that's ever existed. I honestly don't mind that fact that they try to make money, but I don't think I've ever seen a publishing company that exercises its power in a fair manner. Maybe Microsoft. (No, I'm serious.) They may buy developers up like they're gallons of milk before a winter storm, but they don't interfere with the development process, and they don't exactly go out of their way to axe a project in progress. (Hi, Ubisoft!) Just look at Bungie. I've seen people ask the employees of Bungie what it was like to be owned by Microsoft, and they didn't care or even preferred it. Granted, this was a while ago, so I don't have any articles, so if you're looking for proof before you'll believe even the slightest pro-Microsoft paragraph, you're out of luck, and, frankly, I don't care.

Anyway, speaking of games... It turns out that Vivendi owns Blizzard. I didn't know that. No wonder World of Warcraft is still being published by them. I thought it was the typical developer tagging along with a publisher, and since WoW makes Blizzard so many millions a month, I thought they should start publishing the thing themselves. Ah well. I don't like Vivendi, personally, but they don't interfere with Blizzard, so it's all good. (A miracle in this industry.)

But what really got my attention... Is some of the comments I've seen about this whole Activision/Blizzard merger. Nothing about the merger itself, but there's always some lunatic who will come along and say how evil World of Warcraft is. How they make a living of sucking the life out of their players or enslaving their soul or some such nonsensical crap...

I can't help but think how the MMOs these people do play are any different? I know for a fact that a lot more people obsess over Uru to the point of creepy insanity far more than I obsess over Warcraft. You guys treat a DRC appearance like the latest raid instance! You treat the storyline like experience points. You just can't miss any of it, and you're constantly talking about it, and when there's no quest (an episode release), you grind for your experience (you visit the same Ages day after day after day in an attempt to amuse yourself). How, honestly, is this any different than playing World of Warcraft or Everquest or Vanguard? There is none! You put massive amounts of hours into a virtual world. The only difference between WoW and Uru is that Uru's virtual world spills out into real life just a tiny bit more than WoW, because of the forums.

Uru is story driven, WoW is your typical role playing game driven by experience and gathering the latest equipment. In Uru, you get to track down all the latest pointless sparklies, and the latest armor... Er, I mean Relto Pages... to customize your island that nobody sees. You gain honor and reputation by being in the right place at the right time, sucking up to the right people, and getting seen with special people, and knowing the most about D'ni history. You build entire sites dedicated to your experiences in Uru, and some of you roleplay as if you are actually playing your character. How is this any different than World of Warcraft or Everquest or Vanguard?

You pay a monthly fee, yet you turn around and bite at the people who pay for Warcraft, saying that it's a pointless thing to pay for. How is it any more or less pointless than Uru? You can make friends in Uru? You can make friends anywhere. I've made friends in an application that shares text with everyone using it! (Chat rooms and IMs, get it?) How is Uru any more important to play than Warcraft is?

Maybe it's this... As my grandpa said when I was talking about how everyone hates Microsoft, "Nobody likes anyone who's successful." Maybe that's it. Microsoft did all the right things, and they're a company to be reckoned with. Blizzard did all the right things, and they're a company to be reckoned with. Cyan? Well, I won't blame them directly, because I still firmly believe that if it weren't for that awful Ubisoft, we'd be playing a far more successful game than we are now. But people have this mentality where the successful people are somehow not as great as the underdogs. I know this, because I've experienced it. Believe me, I was in your boat with World of Warcraft came out, and I refused to try it, but I eventually did, and it's been the best MMO I've ever played. I couldn't care less if there's 2 million people, 7 million people or 20 million people playing the thing. It's fun.

In short, there's no difference between you, a D'ni historian who plays Uru every waking hour, and that Azeroth historian who plays World of Warcraft every waking hour. There's no difference between the Uru Explorer experiencing a storyline, and that Night Elf Druid doing quests for experience points. There's no difference between becoming a status player in Uru who everyone goes to for questions, and that Human Warlock who's become the best fighter and everyone wants him on their team. There's no difference between that Uru Explorer waiting for episodes and wandering aimlessly around the city, and that Undead Rogue killing monsters to level up while there are no quests to be done. No difference between that Uru Explorer collecting sparkles and Relto pages, and that Gnome Mage collecting weapons and armor.

Next time someone ever tells me that Warcraft is like drugs... World of Warcrack, oh very funny. Next time someone starts acting all high and mighty because they've never touched the thing?

You know, there are two ways to look at this. One is that... They don't trust themselves. They're afraid that if they try to play it, they'll actually like it, and everything they've said up to this point will be held against them. Second is that they're hypocrites, plain and simple. Preach about the evils of Warcraft, while delving into the depths of their own little MMO that sucks their time away.

I'm sure that, by now, everyone has stopped reading because they're so enraged.